These bombs are probably what is preventing a full scale war (talking about India and Pakistan btw)
Let take a look at the exact resolution.
link-and this is from 10 years ago
Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons, .....
Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq, ...
Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968...
Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means, including a dialogue among the States of the region, ...
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,...
and on and on...As far as if force is authorized to enforce the articles, you are wrong.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Perhaps you should be a bit more edumacated on the matter.
1. That is not how you liberate people. The best way to do that is to do it from within. Look at afghanistan. There is still the re-elected interim gov't who isn't majority voted. The Pashtoons (the majority of Afghanistanis) have a problem with that. Iraq is more sensitive because the Iraqi people know that saddam will kill any number of them if it would benifit him in the smallest possible way and yet they still unite in opposition to any US action. Especially since the prospective succeding leaders being groomed by the US gov't doesn't look trustworthy to the people and they already are corrupt before even spending a day in power.
I say punished, because look at the sanctions. It has shown virtually no effect on Saddam, yet the people die because the medicines they would have had as aid are simply not there. Theres food shortages etc. Also, Air campaigns seem to have a lot of "collatoral damage" and it would be difficult distinguishing civilians from Iraqi soldiers in urban combats as far as any US ground troops are concerned.
2. I agree with most of what you've said, but even the people in the know are reluctant in being optimistic about the post saddam Iraq.
None of the points you extracted from the link shows war as the concequence.
So tell me einstein, why do no country, even the US, see the legality of the proposed attack on iraq via those resolutions. They had to go the UN requesting new resolutions. Failing, that they acknowledge they're taking part in something a little naughty as far as the international community is concerned.
Now this bit doesn't seem to be from that link. Oops. Those hands look a little red, as do those ears....;-)
So tell me einstein, why do no country, even the US, see the legality of the proposed attack on iraq via those resolutions. They had to go the UN requesting new resolutions. Failing, that they acknowledge they're taking part in something a little naughty as far as the international community is concerned.
Sanctions didn't work in Iraq, but the UN inspectors were keeping things at bay. Things were fine like that. Only if they didn't double as US intelligence for the military campaign that followed, things would have stayed fine. The inspectors got called back just before the campaign. So saddam didn't throw them out. Its only when the new team was put in after that, he refused to co-operate once they were in.
whoops, that was taken from the charter of the UN, which the resolution calls for acting under:
Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
<UN charter>
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
.....
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
huh?
Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Obviously, the measures in 41 have been inadequate. And yes, if US was to adhere to this then the Security council would need to give approval for any show of force, but None of the UN resolutions outlined war as a consequence to violation. is not correct.
Wow, this is an easy one.
1) a) Saddam supports terrorism, or is atleast pro-terrorism.
1) b) saddam is producing weapons of mass destruction. nuclear too!
1) c) Saddam, as we just found out today, he has new missiles with greater range.(Weell maybe modified SCUDs?)
So, taking these facts, if we do nothing. It is jsut a matter of time till he has ICBMs with nuclear war heads, thus being an immediate threat to the continental USA!
2) based on what I stated in 1, isn't this obvious. Are we going to sit on our hands and one day discover we made the wrong decision the hard way? to quote RATM (Rage Against The Machine) - "If we don't take action now, we settle for nothing later. Settle for nothing now and we'll settle for nothing later."
Where is rumored is Bin-Laden right now? Pakistan or something? Why don't they nuke Pakistan then? To me, it's just the Hussein family against the Bush family. Period.
a. Not radical muslim terrorists because these are the ones he had to fight to get into power.
b. Trying to is the right word.
c. Those missiles go 650km, thats not very far at all and is no threat to the US.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
What is that conclusion based on?
The reports say he has chemical and biological weapons and "may be" making more. He is trying to make or acquire nuclear weopons, but to no avail as he can't get his uranium. Africa being the source, but with too many obstacles along the way.
The reports say there are probably newer missiles. Some reports say there are parts for newer missiles. I mean if, in the most watched country you cannot see something for definite...
After all the "new" evidence, none of the war supporters can say actually how iraq is an immediate threat and yet they still advocate the war despite the international tensions (i.e. America and Tony Blair against the whole world), not to mention the chances of totally destabilising the middle east.
This is dangerous. It just means a more powerful country can do whatever with other countries whenever it wishes. I mean if it is another nuclear capable country screwing around with its neighbours or something, not even the US will dare intervene. Even if they had moral highground, words totally alien to the US administration. Not the way to do international business.
One could arge America's interventionist policies in the Mid East has led to the proliferation of WMDs in that area. After all, the US has proven it WILL mess around with countries who can't defend themselves. So, they're all in a rush to defend against invasion from their neighbors...and also from US.
Ap0phis
Normally you would expect a revolution to come from within. Iraq though is a different case. Why you ask.
abc news
"...
But experts say Saddam?s power ? and security ? are firmly rooted not just in extreme repression, but also by an extensive family and tribal network, which holds positions of power throughout the Iraqi government, including the various military and intelligence organizations. And the son Qusay seems well positioned and well practiced to take his father?s place as the supreme authoritarian power within that hierarchy.
...
?You have to remember, the Iraq government is a family enterprise,? says defector Khidr Hamzah, a former high-level Iraqi official who designed nuclear weapons for Saddam before he fled in the mid-1990s.
?It?s run by family members, tribal members, second cousins, their sons, their nephews ? It?s a tribal system that [runs] the country and family relations is the most sure to loyalty, in the system and a guarantor of having no coups, no assassinations from within,? he says.
Outside of the family, loyalty to the tribe, and especially to Saddam, is enforced by the ruthless eradication of all possible sources of opposition.
...
According to an annual global human rights report prepared by the State Department, the regime periodically eliminates large numbers of political detainees en masse and executes high-ranking civilian, military and tribal leaders suspected of plotting against Saddam.
...
A defector from Iraq?s internal security service quoted in London?s Observer last month said forces supervised by Qusay in 1998 executed more than 2,000 prisoners, many possibly jailed for joining parties or taking part in anti-government activities.
...
Coup Possibilities?
The continued repression under Saddam may be a sign there remain many powerful people in Iraq critical of the regime, and possibly willing to someday do something about it. Then again, the repression may have successfully eliminated those most able to seize power from Saddam?s circle.
?My personal opinion is that there is very little well-placed opposition in the higher circles right now,? says Rick Francona, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer who specialized in Iraq. ?There have been some really serious purges since 1996 and I think they?ve been pretty much weeded out.?
"
Even if (and I belive many do) the people of Iraq wanted a different leader they have no chance to change it by themselves.
Now, why is Saddam dangerous? Israel is one of the best reasons. Saddam even now has missiles that can reach Israel. I don't care what you think of the country of Israel and do not want that to be part of this discussion.
What do you think would happen if Saddam launched a missile with a nuclear or biological warhead against Israel? They would feel they have no choice but to respond and have said that they would. Saddam and his family would not be harmed. He has bunkers to hide in. The effect of Israel attacking an Arab country would inflame( or at least give them an excuse) the other Arab countries. They could use that to band together to attack Israel.
And why would Saddam do that? To many that have fallen for the propaganda they have spread over the years, he would be seen as the next Saladin the great leader of the Arabs that drove out the infidels during the Crusades. Do you remember how upset the Arab countries got when Pres. Bush used the word Crusades? It seems that many in that region still remember them as though they are recent history. Saddam could try to reunite the Arab countries in a bid to regain their former glory. The glory that the have lost due to actions of their own and Britain and France but tend to blame on the US.
That is one of many possible scenarios.
Normally you would expect a revolution to come from within. Iraq though is a different case. Why you ask.
abc news
"...
But experts say Saddam?s power ? and security ? are firmly rooted not just in extreme repression, but also by an extensive family and tribal network, which holds positions of power throughout the Iraqi government, including the various military and intelligence organizations. And the son Qusay seems well positioned and well practiced to take his father?s place as the supreme authoritarian power within that hierarchy.
...
?You have to remember, the Iraq government is a family enterprise,? says defector Khidr Hamzah, a former high-level Iraqi official who designed nuclear weapons for Saddam before he fled in the mid-1990s.
?It?s run by family members, tribal members, second cousins, their sons, their nephews ? It?s a tribal system that [runs] the country and family relations is the most sure to loyalty, in the system and a guarantor of having no coups, no assassinations from within,? he says.
Outside of the family, loyalty to the tribe, and especially to Saddam, is enforced by the ruthless eradication of all possible sources of opposition.
...
According to an annual global human rights report prepared by the State Department, the regime periodically eliminates large numbers of political detainees en masse and executes high-ranking civilian, military and tribal leaders suspected of plotting against Saddam.
...
A defector from Iraq?s internal security service quoted in London?s Observer last month said forces supervised by Qusay in 1998 executed more than 2,000 prisoners, many possibly jailed for joining parties or taking part in anti-government activities.
...
Coup Possibilities?
The continued repression under Saddam may be a sign there remain many powerful people in Iraq critical of the regime, and possibly willing to someday do something about it. Then again, the repression may have successfully eliminated those most able to seize power from Saddam?s circle.
?My personal opinion is that there is very little well-placed opposition in the higher circles right now,? says Rick Francona, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer who specialized in Iraq. ?There have been some really serious purges since 1996 and I think they?ve been pretty much weeded out.?
"
Even if (and I belive many do) the people of Iraq wanted a different leader they have no chance to change it by themselves.
Now, why is Saddam dangerous? Israel is one of the best reasons. Saddam even now has missiles that can reach Israel. I don't care what you think of the country of Israel and do not want that to be part of this discussion.
What do you think would happen if Saddam launched a missile with a nuclear or biological warhead against Israel? They would feel they have no choice but to respond and have said that they would. Saddam and his family would not be harmed. He has bunkers to hide in. The effect of Israel attacking an Arab country would inflame( or at least give them an excuse) the other Arab countries. They could use that to band together to attack Israel.
And why would Saddam do that? To many that have fallen for the propaganda they have spread over the years, he would be seen as the next Saladin the great leader of the Arabs that drove out the infidels during the Crusades. Do you remember how upset the Arab countries got when Pres. Bush used the word Crusades? It seems that many in that region still remember them as though they are recent history. Saddam could try to reunite the Arab countries in a bid to regain their former glory. The glory that the have lost due to actions of their own and Britain and France but tend to blame on the US.
That is one of many possible scenarios.
Ap0phis
UNSCOM and Iraqi Missiles
Read what is on that page and then tell me if you think that even with the inspectors in Iraq that all of the components were found or that Iraq does not have the capability to make many of the components themselves.
UNSCOM and Iraqi Missiles
Read what is on that page and then tell me if you think that even with the inspectors in Iraq that all of the components were found or that Iraq does not have the capability to make many of the components themselves.
I was convinced that we should go to war with somebody when gas prices hit $1.50 a gallon. Iraq will do nicely!
If Iraq currently has chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear capability, isn't that a violation of the resolutions?
I support being proactive rather than reactive. See 9/11...
I support being proactive rather than reactive. See 9/11...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter